The Case for God’s Existence

SHAFAQNA- A common critique of theists is their inability to prove God’s existence rationally and scientifically. It is often claimed that the case for God’s existence is merely an emotional one, with no basis in intellect. Through rational objective reasoning, I have aimed to prove the existence of a higher power, as outlined in this article. Keeping in mind that what follows concerns itself less with the impact of religion or the morality and legitimacy behind canonical books, but rather in whether God’s existence is legitimized in the first place. Needless to say that the aforementioned topics are important in their own rights, but that a belief in God needs to be established first and foremost in order to delve into them.

Proof 1: Cosmological Argument

The cosmological proof of God’s existence stems back to medieval Islamic academia in which it was first argued that everything that comes into existence is dependent on another for its existence. The argument structure is as follows:

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause

Our universe began to exist

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the conclusion that a cause for the universe is necessary, we arrive at a further premise and conclusion which goes as follows:

The universe has a cause

If the universe has a cause, an immaterial, timeless and changeless God must exist

Therefore, a timeless, immaterial, changeless, God exists.

The conclusion of the supernatural entity being immaterial is troublesome to many because perception through the five senses is their criterion to accepting the existence of anything. However, Greek Philosophers explained the necessity of an immaterial initial cause in the following manner: “The fact that you can’t see a God proves that there is a God. Because if this eye can see God, that means you’ve defined God. And that which is definable is limited. And that which is limited should not be worshiped by man.”

Proof 2: Moral Values and Duties Argument

It is often argued that one can have objectively absolute morals without the need of a God, but is there any logic behind that? In order to answer this question, it is necessary for us to first draw a clear distinction between morals and civil duties.

Unfortunately, the terms “morals” and “duties” have been used interchangeably by contemporary atheists in order to overlook their differences. Duties are concerned with the rightness or wrongness of an act, while values are concerned with whether something is goodor bad.

Duties have to do with moral obligations, what you are or aren’t ought to do. However you wouldn’t be morally obligated to do something if it was not good for you. For example an individual’s desire to become a doctor. There is no more of a moral obligation in him becoming a doctor than there is to become a firefighter, baker, or a teacher. It would be good for him to become a doctor, not a moral obligation. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong are dictated by obligations.

Now we should draw a distinction between objective and subjective values. A perspective that is objective is said to be detached from emotions or personal opinions and is solely based on facts and empirical evidence. A perspective that is subjective is influenced by feelings, emotions, assumptions and beliefs. Therefore, to say there are objectively moral duties is to say those actions are morally right/wrong regardless of any opinions or beliefs. An example would be to say the Holocaust is objectively immoral, though the perpetrators of the crime (Nazis) believed it was the right thing to do.

Lastly, we should understand why without God, we cannot have an objectively moral backbone. As Christian apologists, Francis J. Beckwith and Greg Koukl, put it: “A command only makes sense when there are two minds involved, one giving the command and one receiving it.” [1] If objective morals are to be set irrespective of opinions, beliefs, emotions, the time period you’re living in and cultural/societal norms, they must be anchored by an objective, moral, timeless entity. Without those, the prescribed morals are subject to relativity and subjectivity and thus having no objective value because God is the only entity which transcends human subjectivity. This is in fact why the law could never be used as a metric system for morality as it once gave us institutionalized sexism, slavery, and genocide.

Having made those distinctions, deductive reasoning can be used for a simple argument in the necessity for God’s existence.

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist

Objective moral values and duties do exist

Therefore, God exists.

On one hand, proponents of objective morals, make value judgements like “Slavery is abhorrent” yet defend moral relativism though they have no transcendent anchor for those values. Who are we to say that one culture is morally deficient to that of another, when the criteria for right/wrong is subject to change? An examination of cross cultural moral righteousness has led to a conclusion that actions a society may deem abhorrent can stir no guilt in the perpetrating culture.

Now I offer a question to my readers: How would one adjudicate between two opposing moral frameworks when both claim to provide an unerring way of living? You simply can’t with moral relativism.

As you can see, one can arrive at a rational conclusion for the necessity of a God through deductive reasoning. Belief in God has a basis in intellect, requiring a violation in rational thought for one to claim the nonexistence of a higher power. I urge readers to contemplate the proofs listed above from an unbiased lens in order to reach a conclusion founded in logic. Belief in anything, for that matter, should have a foundation built on reasoning and logic.